Video: John Kerry’s not good, very bad day with Chris Wallace

posted at 12:31 pm on September 1, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Ed warned you this morning, so we all knew that John Kerry was doing the Full Ginsburg for Sunday morning. The topic, of course, was the President’s sudden about-face on letting Congress make the call on attacking Syria. It was bound to be a tough sell, but I don’t think anyone expected things to go as badly as they did when he talked to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, so you should really see the video here if you missed it.

It’s a roughly 12 minute interview, but if you want to jump straight to the opening volley of the fireworks, skip to the two minute mark of the video below. Kerry is busy trying to spin the I-Formation hand-off from POTUS to the Congress as a “big gain” as the world receives the “legitimacy of the full throated response of the Congress of the United States and the President acting together after our democratic process has worked properly.” Wallace is having none of it.

Chris Wallace: But Mr. Secretary, this isn’t CSI. This isn’t a civics lesson. People’s lives are at stake, as I don’t have to tell you, on the ground in Syria. In your remarks on Friday you said that this matters, and it matters beyond the borders of Syria. Take a look.

[Insert video from Friday]

CW: Mr. Secretary, what message are we sending to Iran and Hezbollah and North Korea when the President announces that he thinks that we should take military action, but he’s going to wait nine days for Congress to come back before he takes any action, and then he goes off and plays a round of golf? What message does that send to the rebels on the ground whose lives are in danger and to our enemies who are watching?

Secretary of State John Kerry: I think actually North Korea and Iran ought to take note that the United States of America has the confidence in its democratic process to be able to ask all of the American people to join in an action that could have profound implications with respect to Iran. The fact is that if we act, and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program. That is one of the things that is at stake here. You just quoted it. That and America’s willingness to enforce the international norm on chemical weapons. I think we are stronger. The President thinks we are stronger when the Congress of the United States joins in this. I mean, Congress can’t have it both ways. You can’t sit there and say you’ve got to consult with us and honor the constitutional process, and Congress has the right to make its voice heard in these decisions, and the President is giving them that opportunity, and I think you should welcome it, Chris. And the Congress and the country should welcome this.

CW: But Mr. Secretary…

JK: It’s an important debate, and we do not lose anything militarily in the meantime.

CW: But the refugees on the ground lose something, sir. They lose with the possibility that they’re going to get killed in the meantime. Let me just, if I may, follow up.

I omitted all of the “ummms, uhs” and pauses from Kerry’s answers as per usual standards, but you have to see it to get the full flavor. It goes downhill from there. Let’s cut to the video, and then come back for a bit of different coverage.

The panel discussion before the interview is also worth a look. It covers many of the same scenes with a variety of opinions. But if there is one take from the opposite side which is at least worth a chuckle, it’s brought up by a panelist who quotes Axlerod from Twitter. On Obama’s decision to let Congress decide after so many of them insisted he needed their approval before going to war, he described the President as essentially turning Congress into “the dog that caught the car.”

Uhhhh…lets see zero has done over 1,000 EO’s exempting Congress every time. He’s had issue after issue where he always went it alone and now he wants to be bi-partisan? Is this yet another fat basturd moment with david axelrod sitting in for fat Christie?Is the whole thing a political move to keep from losing 100 seats in the House and Senate next year?Probably.

Congress has the right to make its voice heard in these decisions, and the President is giving them that opportunity, and I think you should welcome it, Chris. And the Congress and the country should welcome this.

..Obama [again] got his winy in a winger when France and England backed out and it’s turning out to be one massive stink bomb. His dough-head SOS got caught switching messages by Wallace and any of the press caring to expose this clown show for what it has been over the last 1,685 days..

Next week, it so happens, the French parliament meets, had the meeting on the calendar for other purposes…having seen the courage of the British parliament, then the wake-up call obama got, will totally pick up the topic and, hopefully, bring froggie Hollande to his senses.

One more thing – I could almost bet that obama made a deal with Boehner to vote the thing down. obama will then blame Boehner for doing nothing. Boehner will pretend to cry and the USA benefits. All is possible with the weasels in DC. Life is good for them. They’re all kings. Work harder to sustain them. They don’t represent you, never. Socialism’ ‘fruit’ are just for them, fools.

On Obama’s decision to let Congress decide after so many of them insisted he needed their approval before going to war, he described the President as essentially turning Congress into “the dog that caught the car.”

Hey Frenchie, how does the undercarriage of the bus look like? We can speed this up if you like. You are a dumb ass and defended a loser, what do you expect? Good God, when is it time to start taking back our country?

The fact is that if we act, and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program

Let’s say that Congress approves Barry’s plan to lob some missiles into Syria over the course of a couple of days. Barry has already announced that he is not going to do enough to cause regime change, and that’s he not going to do enough to cause significant damage to Assad’s assets, and that he’s not going to send in any ground troops. Basically, the proposed “very limited” strike will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture of disapproval. Just enough saber rattling so that Barry “will not be mocked.”

What exactly does that say to the mullahs in Iran? That if (when) they develop nuclear bombs, Obama will make the same sort of meaningless and purely symbolic gesture of disapproval at them? Why in the world would they do anything other than laugh at that?

Well, at least they didn’t blame it on a lame anti-Mohammed homemade video this time.

Declassify all the intel surrounding this “episode.” ALL of it. The President can do that immediately…but Obama, King Barry, will not…there is no there there with the intel…and a good portion of it is an embarrassment to the regime…Washington, not Damascus.

Facts, Mr. Kerry. Not opinions. Facts. And not the sort of lies you spoke back in your anti-war days…in the manner of Genghis Khan, indeed.

Your answers, responses and comments, and speeches since this Syria thing got underway are devoid of fact…and more so…more important…devoid of honesty.

You, Mr. Kerry would dare to subordinate our Nation to your ego and that of the King?

So, Mr. Kerry, if you love this idea, this notion, why don’t you, John Kerry, go out to Damascus today, right now, and have them paint a red line…no, a big red circle all around you….and then tell your King, Barry, to bring it on.

Or is that something you’d like to hire out…beneath your station? Let the poor folk do it. Tell American youth, tell them if only they had gone to college they would not have to be in Baghdad Damascus?

What exactly does that say to the mullahs in Iran? That if (when) they develop nuclear bombs, Obama will make the same sort of meaningless and purely symbolic gesture of disapproval at them? Why in the world would they do anything other than laugh at that?

AZCoyote on September 1, 2013 at 1:07 PM

If we had a real President in office he would just start launching at syria and “accidentally” take out iran’s nukes in the process.

The SCOAMF backed himself into a corner by making empty threats and now he needs Congress to bail his sorry backside out. This what socialist do people, start something they can’t finish and expect someone else to bail them out then claim credit.

CW: Mr. Secretary, what message are we sending to Iran and Hezbollah and North Korea when the President announces that he thinks that we should take military action, but he’s going to wait nine days for Congress to come back before he takes any action, and then he goes off and plays a round of golf? What message does that send to the rebels on the ground whose lives are in danger and to our enemies who are watching?

Kerry calls attacking Syria a moral obligation but that is total BS. So Syria gassed its own people for the third time. That doesn’t mean the United States is morally obligated to intervene any more than when North Korea guns down dissenters, Cuba holds bogus elections, or Angela Merkel decides to wear a thong bikini.

This is all about that red line speech Captain Kickass gave a year ago. Chris Wallace calls Kerry out on the fact that this administration is itching to kill Syrians for no good reason. Frankly, I don’t think that Congress is going to give the thin-skinned rat permission. And they shouldn’t- there are times to intervene militarily but saving face of a worthless human being who can’t keep from blustering isn’t one of them.

In regards to congressional approval, Barry has consistently dry gulched the gop. I wouldn’t give him permission to leave the room much less cross the hallway.
In closed door meetings I’d be cordial with the king but when it came time to need something from me, I’d tell him to go eff himself. “Sir”. “Respectfully”. And then hand it right back to him at the next open mic, “The president called me a _____. To my face. How can anybody work with someone like that?”
Hey, you set those rules b*tch. You can burn by’em.
Oh and every uniform I speak to? Tells me when it hits the fan, Barry’s as good as Mubarak.

So when Obama has to recall the fleet he put into harm’s way for his fragile ego, will we get to dock his pay to offset the costs incurred?

Key West Reader on September 1, 2013 at 1:32 PM

That’s an interesting point. Does the Navy keep five destroyers and an LPD off the coast of Syria for the next few weeks until Congress comes back in session? Or will they be ordered to stand down? And will it be Obama that gives the order this time, after golf of course.

Asking again, -if the President of the US makes a dumb commitment, some stupid red line declaration that should not have been made, to what extent do we have to back up that commitment with the US military in order to preserve the credibility of the nation and the office?

I disagree with this analysis. Do I think Kerry is an waffling idiot? Yes, but Wallace is basically grilling Kerry that we should jump in now without congress and worse yet using a “guilt trip” argument.

I understand what you and Wallace are saying or trying to do but the “average joe” will simply view the whole thing as stupid because they don’t care about the Syrian rebels because many the rebels are jihadist. They basically view it as let them kill each other and for good reason. Frankly being critical of the president for slowing down the process to get into a war no one wants just to score some political insider points to me seems to be a mistake.

Instead our side should be bashing the president for even thinking of getting involved, that way when the debacle unfolds Obama can take full blame. The Republicans are basically giving Obama cover so when this goes bad he say “well congress wanted this too and look at all the Republicans who voted for it” and then drag out someone like Capt Ahab to testify on his behalf.

We have ObamaCare and various budget issues are coming up soon and this whole Syria thing I am starting to believe is going to be used as a distraction from those situations by Obama. I really wish the “bleeding heart hawks” in our party would for once focus on this country and not on god forsaken places in the Islamic world.

Live with the fact that the Islamic world is an unstable and violent place and there is not much we can do about that…it has been that way for a long long time…

Obama’s strategy worked — attention turns to congress now and the totally incontinent, scared and useless Republicans. He’s free and clear. Very few people are going to parse the issue anymore and keep track of the chronology of ineptitude — interest just peaked.

On to the next thing. Amnesty. Congress will probably vote against the military action, thus giving Obama another talking point. Then, to atone for this, the GOP will pass amnesty.

I think actually North Korea and Iran ought to take note that the United States of America has the confidence in its democratic process to be able to ask all of the American people to join in an action that could have profound implications with respect to Iran. The fact is that if we act, and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program. That is one of the things that is at stake here. You just quoted it. That and America’s willingness to enforce the international norm on chemical weapons. I think we are stronger. The President thinks we are stronger when the Congress of the United States joins in this. I mean, Congress can’t have it both ways. You can’t sit there and say you’ve got to consult with us and honor the constitutional process, and Congress has the right to make its voice heard in these decisions, and the President is giving them that opportunity, and I think you should welcome it, Chris. And the Congress and the country should welcome this.

I read that twice, then ran a word search on it. Kerry never uttered the word “Syria”.

We? There isn’t any “we” about this. This is all Obama and he couldn’t have screwed it up more if he had been trying.

If he wasn’t going to bother with the Constitution he should have had Tomahawk missiles over Damascus before saying one thing publicly. If he was going to go to Congress, he should have done so in a more deliberate way than a week of minions saying such consultation was unnecessary and then doing a 180 on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend! And nobody in the administration has made the case that it is an action that should even be considered.

Kerry looked like and is an idiot thanks to Barry chucking him under the bus. Democrats are a special kind of stupid to elect these morons and then try to defend and explain what they said. This is the most pathetic administration in history and I pray historians accurately write about the Obama regime.

Asking again, -if the President of the US makes a dumb commitment, some stupid red line declaration that should not have been made, to what extent do we have to back up that commitment with the US military in order to preserve the credibility of the nation and the office?

slickwillie2001 on September 1, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Let’s answer that question this way….. Is the office of President and the United States status worth killing innocent Syrians because a thin-skinned rat made a threat a year ago. I’d say no. Unlike military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Kosovo and Mogadishu- there is absolutely no moral justification in bombing Syria.

I’ve never been a war protester but if the stupid lazy bastard in the White House decides to move forward with bombing Syria I will be out there loudly protesting. This is not a fight our military or nation should jump into. And certainly not to save the face of the louse of a President.

1. Not to worry, Lt. for life John F. Kerry has his CIA hat in his brief case, his self proven awards and citations, his place of honor in Communist Vietnams usefull traitors list, his two DD-214’s and his two odd Discharges, whats not to love when it comes to commie fellow travelers.

2. Not to worry, Community Orginizer In Chief has Val and Van Jones to consult with on his smoke breaks, we all just know he was a high honor student a University’s and for sure he is not just about covering his ass and passing the buck once more, and once more showing his “daddy issues” and thinking this National Security is an emotional issue to be used to get more re-election money and power for his commie Democrat Party.

Why worry, hell Kerry made it to Cambodia at Christmas time and Obama has his golf game on the mend.

Asking again, -if the President of the US makes a dumb commitment, some stupid red line declaration that should not have been made, to what extent do we have to back up that commitment with the US military in order to preserve the credibility of the nation and the office?

slickwillie2001 on September 1, 2013 at 1:36 PM

This is damage that may well be irreparable. We will not regain credibility or integrity until this man is removed from office, impeached, or God forbid, decides to serve out his term without resigning.

Since that first red line was drawn, while in Washington King Barry dawdled or played golf or took his vacays…the only non-Jihadi “rebel” force that may have made a positive difference out there has been shattered…by defection, desertions, deaths, and despondency….we waited too long to help them…on purpose…can barely muster a small rabble anymore…enemies of both Assad and the jihadis/AQ-Levant.

Syria is but one American air campaign away from becoming an Islamic state controlled by Al Qaeda-Levant.

And the majority of our “leadership” through ignorance, apathy, and evil is trying to assist jihadis to accomplish just that very thing.

But this is all about our “credibility” or “we cannot be mocked”…and meanwhile…shouts of “Allahuakhbar!” grow louder and louder and more frequent every passing minute out there…

Well, Kerry’s ..’this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this’ is a loser. Everyone cheered ‘W’ on into Iraq, then joined in to saw-the-limb off behind him…the GOP either joined or stood silently in the shadows whilst the sawing was done.

The things Saddam did makes Assad look like the “Blessed Teresa of Calcutta” … and Saddam did them for decades.

On Obama’s decision to let Congress decide after so many of them insisted he needed their approval before going to war, he described the President as essentially turning Congress into “the dog that caught the car.”

Sorry but the lazy stupid bastard has not shown any leadership in this matter. In fact, if he hadn’t needlessly drawn red lines a year ago there wouldn’t be any question of American intervention. The American people are not so appalled with the situation on the ground in Syria that they want America to get involved militarily.

Obama has a successful, tried and true, effective backup plan for war. He used it often on the squishy pasty faced Republicans and tea party, in the past 6 years. He will unleash Lois Lerner, the IRS. EPA, OFA, Google, Facebook, NBC, ABC, MSNBC,CBS,EPA,NSA, Susan Rice, Killary, and John McCain! Syria will fold like a cheap suit!! That community organizing thing is irresistible! He don’t need no army!

Wallace missed a golden opportunity to ask Lurch why we should be helping Al Queda by bombing Assad’s military regardless of Obama’s red line, and then ask the stilted one why didn’t we do something earlier then the red line was crossed earlier?

he described the President as essentially turning Congress into “the dog that caught the car.”

What arrogance.

Comrade O is saying he made a decision, but instead of actually making it he is daring Congress to say no. He is trying to pass the buck to Congress… “I dare you to stop me before I do something stupid that I really, really want to do.” He wants to blame the GOP for disapproving of something he has said he already decided to do. Blame for what? Not approving we blow a few things up in Syria just to “send a message”, as if that would actually accomplish anything? What rot.

So who on the Dem side is going to carry Comrade O’s water in Congress? Reid? Pelosi? John F’N Kerry does not count.

Who on the Dem side is going to persuade enough Dems to vote to support this is idiotic, insane, face saving proposal? If Comrade O cannot get a majority of the Dems on his side in both Houses, what does that mean? The GOP only has to point to the fact that he cannot get his own party to support a high questionable and potentially foolhardy attack on another nation that will accomplish nothing but start another war.

Let the Senate debate this and have a vote to support it first.

It is incumbent on this admin to persuade members of Congress to support his non-decision “decision”. It is incumbent on this admin to persuade the American people. That is what leadership is all about when a President is convinced something must be done but is faced with widespread bi-partisan skepticism and opposition. If Comrade O does no forcefully make his case there is little chance a majority in his own party will support him.

It is easy to oppose this. There are no vital US interests served by lobbing a few cruise missiles at Syria. If he was actually proposing something substantive, like taking out Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal, he might have a better chance. But a nation does not commit a clear and unambiguous act of war against another sovereign nation that has not threatened it just to “send a message”. Is there any historic precedent for this? No proponent of Realpolitik would ever advocate doing something like this.

Comrade O needs to make his case to Congress and the American people. Stating that he “has decided” and then daring Congress not to approve is arrogance personified. King Barack is behaving like a monarch who must now deal with a people’s assembly he only reluctantly agreed to occasionally listen to, else the peasants might rebel.

US intervention in this matter isn’t necessarily appropriate. Where’s the proof that Assad ordered the gas attack? Could it be that Obama establishing a gas attack as a red line would cause (Al Quaeda-associated) rebels to use some gas to trigger US help? And then there’s the Pandora’s Box this opens in the whole region – if you’re in Israel, you now have a gas mask if you didn’t already.

The US shouldn’t intervene. But Obama will look like an even bigger fool if he backs down altogether.

So….he’s put Congress in the position to say no. We avoid this disaster, and Obama gets to deflect, to Congressional Republicans, any blame that would rightfully be aimed at him. This is a gold-standard example of the Limbaugh theorem.

No wonder Mr. Preezy was able to traipse away so lightly to the golf course after his statement yesterday.

If Boehner was worth a fraction of a damn, he’d call in the House, get this thing voted down, then go on camera to a) tell the world that he’s put the naive manchild in time out, and b) encourage Putin to be gentle with Barry at the G20 summit (with a wink).